Yeah, if we had a significant amount of time and quorum for agoran consent, there would be no point in having it.
It does feel odd that you would have to bribe less people to give you a title of your choice if you did it "non-traditionally", though. I mean, it's quite possible without doing anything catastrophic to raise the power of "Patent Titles" or to lower the consent. I see no reason that would be a bad idea. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote: > > Isn't it? They seem to be the same in terms of the proportion of people > you > > need to get on side, it's hard to see how they aren't intended to be > similar. > > It seems kind of strange that it's easier to award a patent title by > making an > > AI1.5 proposal than it is to get the herald to use the intended AC2 > action? > > Nope, not in particular. There's no mapping implied. In particular, if I > were mapping it, I'd certainly raise quorum on agoran consent (currently > 1). > And the fact that you can end the "voting period" quickly (whenever you > have > the right amount) and quorum is low means Agoran Consent difficulty may > or may not match Proposal voting difficulty. > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
